European Commission

 

Case detail

B a c k

Directive article Article 5 4. (a)
Article 6 2. (a)
Annex I al1 21.
National ID MD 2009:36
Country Sweden Decision date 19/11/2009
Common name Decision type Court decision in appeal
Court Marknadsdomstolen (Stockholm) Plaintiff(s) Eniro AB and Din Del AB
Court translation The Swedish Market Court (Stockholm) Defendant(s) Emphas Ekonomi AB
Subject impersonation
Keywords black listconfusing marketingidentity of the tradermisleading actionsimpersonationinvoices as marketing material

+ Expand all

Headnote

 

(1) It is an unfair commercial practice to send out invoices that mimic another party's branding (through the use of such party's name, marks and invoice design), and create the impression that services were rendered by this other party.

(2) Such practice also constitutes a breach of the per se prohibition of Annex I-21 of the UCP Directive. 

Facts

The defendant had been sending out invoices on which it had included words similar to references for services provided by the plaintiffs, without any previous order having been made. The invoices were additionally designed in order to look similar to the plaintiffs' invoices. The invoices had been distributed widely and all referred to the same order number / invoice number, indicating invoice cheating.

The plaintiffs argued that the defendant must be prohibited to use the relevant marks (or any similar marks) respectively invoices, indicating that a service had been ordered when this was not actually the case.

Legal issue

Is it an unfair commercial practice to send out invoices that mimic another party's branding, and create the impression that services were rendered by this other party? 

Decision

The court found that the marks used had to be considered as likely to cause confusion, as the plaintiffs' company name, mark and invoice design were very similar to the invoices of the plaintiffs. Consequently, there was an obvious risk that consumers could perceive the invoice as being linked to the plaintiffs. The defendant's marketing was therefore considered to be misleading, and also constituted a breach of the per se prohibition of Annex I-21 of the UCP Directive. 

  URL Decision Decision full text
EN N/A
SV http://www.marknadsdomstolen.se/avgoranden/avgoranden2009/Dom2009-36.pdf Click here

Result

The plaintiffs' requests were granted.

Additional information

Date Description URL
There is no events for this case.

Related case(s)

National ID Common Name Subject Country Link type
There is no related cases for this case.

Legal Literature

Title Author
There is no Legal Literature for this case.